“Microsoft Corp. has agreed to pay Universal Music Group a fee for each new Zune digital music player it sells when the iPod rival launches next week, the companies said on Thursday,” Yinka Adegoke reports for Reuters.
“The groundbreaking deal could redefine the digital music business pioneered by Apple Computer Inc.,” Adegoke reports. “Microsoft is trying to break into an industry closely aligned with archival Apple, which is credited with nearly single-handedly building the legal Web music world with its iPod players and iTunes music store.”
Adegoke reports, “But Apple does not give a cut of sales of iPods to music companies. It only pays labels for songs sold on its iTunes music store.”
“‘We felt that any business that’s built on the bedrock of music we should share in,’ said Doug Morris, chief executive of Universal, owned by French media giant Vivendi,” Adegoke reports. “He did not disclose the amount of the fee for the Zune, which launches next Tuesday.”
“The iPod has a nearly 80 percent share of digital media player sales, and its iTunes music downloads site is also the dominant online music store,” Adegoke reports.
Adegoke reports, “Like other record companies, Universal has a revenue-share deal with iTunes but no share of iPod sales. ‘We have a current contract with him and at the end of that I’m sure we’ll negotiate,’ said Morris, whose company accounts for nearly one in three CDs sold in the United States. Morris said the deal could set a precedent in negotiations with other device manufacturers, including mobile phone makers, who are increasingly seeing music as important to the future of their businesses.”
Full article here.
We’ve been saying for quite awhile that Microsoft seems to want the Zune to fail; the choice brown, the muddled business plan, the crippled Wi-Fi, the hobbled DRM-laden “sharing”, the weak advertising, the fake scroll-wheel, the “uncoolness” of Microsoft, the lack of a compelling price advantage, the lack of video content, etc. But, we couldn’t figure out why Microsoft seems to want the Zune to fail. We thought maybe they needed a tax write-off or they were just mismanaged and/or deluded. But, maybe their “plan” is to set a precedent for the next round of iTunes Store negotiations? Perhaps Microsoft hopes to hurt Apple by trying to force this weird profit sharing on iPods?
To share hardware profits with the music labels makes no sense. Did phonograph makers share record player profits with music labels? No. Did Sony share Walkman profits with music labels? No. Do AM/FM radio makers share profits with music labels? No. Do TV makers share profits with TV networks and producers? No.
We do not see Zune becoming much of a success. Universal Music Group certainly isn’t going to get rich from Zune sales. We just can’t imagine Steve Jobs caving and sharing iPod revenue with the music labels; not with iPod+iTunes market-dominating clout.
As we’ve said before, if Zune, improbably, shows any real traction, Steve Jobs can simply license FairPlay to device makers and/or music outfits (already smarting from being stabbed in the back by Microsoft’s abandonment of “PlaysForSue”) and consign Microsoft Zune to a quick death by isolation.
One would safely assume that Apple can draw up the licenses at very favorable terms and companies will still jump at the chance to participate in the iPod+iTunes ecosystem. Surging Mac sales (and sales into new markets, ie. “iTV,” “iPhone,” etc.) will more than make up for any iPod and iTunes revenue losses engendered by FairPlay licensing (remember, this licensing won’t happen for quite some time).
Apple can quickly and effectively make Microsoft Zune a very remote island that will have no chance of competing or generating meaningful revenue for Microsoft. The result will be that Apple controls the standard and owns the best-known brands while still selling the device(s) (iPod family) and the online content service (iTunes Store) that started it all. Microsoft would have no recourse and would shut down the isolated, unprofitable Zune brand.
Related articles:
Warner’s Middlebronfman: ‘We sell our songs through iPods, but we don’t have share of iPod revenue’ – October 05, 2005
Analysts: Microsoft Zune may end up being a flop – November 08, 2006
Are 58% of iPod owners really thinking of a Zune switch? – November 08, 2006
Survey: 58% of iPod owners planning another MP3 player purchase will consider Microsoft’s Zune – November 01, 2006
Zune is from Microsoft, but Microsoft doesn’t want anybody to know about it – November 07, 2006
Microsoft Zune to be US-only, no firm plans to launch anywhere else globally – November 03, 2006
Five Microsoft Zune TV commercials – November 02, 2006
JupiterResearch: Apple’s iPod will dominate for foreseeable future; Microsoft’s Zune insignificant – October 25, 2006
Ellen DeGeneres Show gives away Microsoft Zunes, studio audience goes berserk – October 23, 2006
More Microsoft Zune myths explored – October 20, 2006
Five more Microsoft Zune myths – October 18, 2006
Microsoft Zune intensifies chaos in Apple iPod+iTunes also-ran market – October 16, 2006
Newsweek Q&A: Apple CEO Steve Jobs discusses iPod’s impact, Microsoft’s Zune, and more – October 15, 2006
Microsoft’s Ballmer: Zune device not money loser, wishes Apple’s 30GB iPod was $299 instead of $249 – October 11, 2006
Microsoft’s consumer electronics track record: long string of failures – October 11, 2006
MP3.com founder: ‘Zune will be an expensive failure for Microsoft because consumers aren’t stupid’ – October 06, 2006
Microsoft fails to secure key Zune domains – October 04, 2006
Microsoft rigs Zune with tricky pricing and proprietary money schemes – October 03, 2006
Why Microsoft’s Zune won’t kill Apple’s iPod – October 03, 2006
10 Apple iPod vs. Microsoft Zune myths – October 02, 2006
Analyst: Zune could lead to ‘civil war’ between Microsoft and Windows Media partners – September 29, 2006
Thurrott on Microsoft’s Zune: ‘The makings of a disaster, what the heck are these people thinking?’ – September 29, 2006
Analyst: Microsoft Zune’s as good as dead on arrival – September 28, 2006
Microsoft sets 30GB Zune price at $249.99 – September 28, 2006
How Microsoft’s Zune can kill Apple’s iPod – September 21, 2006
Microsoft’s Zune insanity – September 21, 2006
The Microsoft Zune 1.0 dud – September 20, 2006
Microsoft’s underwhelming Zune a ‘viral DRM’ device – September 18, 2006
SanDisk teams with RealNetworks against new common foe: Microsoft Zune – September 18, 2006
Creative does Apple’s dirty work by immediately attacking Microsoft’s Zune – September 17, 2006
Motley Fool’s Jayson: Microsoft’s ‘just plain ugly’ Zune a meager offering, not an iPod killer – September 15, 2006
What’s in a name? ‘Zune’ a French-Canadian euphemism for penis or vagina – September 15, 2006
Crave at CNET: ‘Microsoft Zune, all the excitement that brown can bring’ – September 15, 2006
Microsoft’s Zune underwhelms – September 15, 2006
Enderle: Microsoft Zune ‘a design mistake’ – September 15, 2006
Microsoft hypocrisy exposed with Zune: What ever happened to ‘choice?’ – September 14, 2006
Analyst: Microsoft Zune with fake scroll wheel ‘hardly an Apple iPod killer’ – September 14, 2006
Analyst: Microsoft Zune won’t spoil Apple’s biggest iPod Christmas ever – September 14, 2006
Microsoft unveils Zune 30GB player, Zune Marketplace; declines to disclose prices – September 14, 2006
Analyst: Microsoft’s Zune an ‘underwhelming’ repackaged Toshiba Gigabeat; no threat to Apple iPod – August 30, 2006
Microsoft confirms brick-like Zune to be made by Toshiba – August 25, 2006
Microsoft Zune is chunky brick made by Toshiba – August 25, 2006
Microsoft to sell single Zune model this fall, rumors of Wi-Fi capability were greatly exaggerated – August 10, 2006
Microsoft to spend hundreds of millions, several years on Zune trying to catch Apple iPod+iTunes – July 27, 2006
Zune: Apple cannot lose. Microsoft cannot win. – July 26, 2006
I can’t imagine that Jobs and Co. would cave in and do what Microsoft is doing. That would be horrible.
I wonder how much of MS’s miniscule profit is going to Universal (and perhaps others)? I heard that perhaps they are even taking a loss on each item sold just to try and get ahead. This would put them even more “in the hole”.
MDN: great; as in, this Zune thingy is going to be a _great flop_.
Does this mean that Whirlpool will have to pay Levi’s a cut for every washing machine they sell?
“We felt that any business that’s built on the bedrock of music we should share in,” said Doug Morris, chief executive of Universal
Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner said in a speech at the Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference: “Those people are not going to be allowed to take food off of our plate.”
Any connection? Perhaps M$ thinks that certain companies have inalienable rights to profits in their respective industries.
Do AM/FM radio makers share profits with music labels? No.
ehhh, yes they do. They pay a royalty every time they play a song.
But back to the original subject. Who gets hurt the most if Universal, or any other label, pulls their songs from iTunes?
Apple has sold about 60,000,000 iPods and sold over 1,000,000,000 songs via iTunes At 65¢, label’s cut, Apple has paid them indirectly over $650,000,000. That’s about $11 per iPod and growing. Apple doesn’t make money from iTunes music sales.
How long before the Zune can generate that kind of revenue for the labels? In my opinion, it won’t happen.
That’s why MSFT is paying Universal a fee for every Zune sold. Universal has seen the same surveys that MSFT, and Apple, have seen, and they know that most songs on PCs are illegal. For the most part, the same is NOT true with iPod owners, AND Apple is a major source of revenue for the labels.
Gregg Thurman,
Radio makers do not pay royalties, radio stations do. The radio device profits go solely to the radio makers. Just as Apple does not pay royalties to the labels on iPod sales, but they do pay royalties on iTunes songs sold.
I hate to be a prick, but can we confirm this? That sounds like a really stupid deal that even MSFT wouldn’t go for… unless they are making up for it in some way.
After all, this is Reuters, the “Doctored Photos” organization.
I’m just being skeptical here… I just dislike rumors.
“To share hardware profits with the music labels makes no sense. Did phonograph makers share record player profits with music labels? No. Did Sony share Walkman profits with music labels? No. Do AM/FM radio makers share profits with music labels? No. Do TV makers share profits with TV networks and producers? No”
——————
MDN,
Did phonograph makers sell records that would only play on their phonograph? No.
Did Sony sell cassette tapes that would only play on Walkmans? No.
Do AM/FM radio makers broadcast radio signals that can only be received on their radios? No.
Do TV manufactures produce programming that will only play on their TV’s? No
Does Apple sell content (which is owned by the labels) that will only play on the iPod? YES.
But… but, it’s broooooown!
“MDN,
Did phonograph makers sell records that would only play on their phonograph? No.
Did Sony sell cassette tapes that would only play on Walkmans? No.
Do AM/FM radio makers broadcast radio signals that can only be received on their radios? No.
Do TV manufactures produce programming that will only play on their TV’s? No
Does Apple sell content (which is owned by the labels) that will only play on the iPod? YES.”
I fail to see your point. The reason iTunes-purchased songs only play on an iPod is because the labels asked for DRM. And don’t forget, the iPod was out before the iTunes Music Store.
So again, what was your point?
I see your point, Advocate. However, cannot iPods also play the same MP3 files that play on ever other brand of mp3 player? The answer is a resounding YES!
Even if a consumer buys an iPod without intending to use the iTunes Store, under a similar deal, Apple would be required to pay a record label money. That seems absurd.
It is true that the content Apple sells will only play on the iPod. However, the iPod is a universal playback device just like all the other hardware you mentioned. It just so happens that it can also play a proprietary format.
My point is that the labels feel entitled to a cut of iPod profits because their content is driving sales of the iPod… Much like Apple feels entitled to a cut of third party iPod accessory manufacturers.
The Advocate:
Does Apple sell content (which is owned by the labels) that will only play on the iPod? YES.
Does Apple share iTunes store profits with music labels? YES
I’m usually against the MacDailyNews take on all the stories, since they’re unfairly biased, but this time they do have a point. Why should Apple have to pay a double premium unlike other media device manufacturers?
“Does Apple sell content (which is owned by the labels) that will only play on the iPod? YES.“
Thanks to the DRM forced by *gasp* the labels. Oh, the irony.
Back to the topic, why only Universal? What about the other big labels like Columbia? They should make the same profit off Zune since they own the copyright on some of the music to be sold at Zune Marketplace. The smaller labels should also ask for profit sharing, after all, MS is trying to use indie image for Zune.
Advocate,
You can make the very same argument for all of the hardware devices you named. The music industry drove sales of phonographs, the music industry drove sales of Walkm(e)n, the music industry drove sales of radios, etc.
By that same logic, the music industry is also driving sales of fancy sound cards, speaker systems, and even computers.
The music industry is also driving sales of those rickety compact disc scratch-removal devices.
And don’t forget CD carrying cases.
There are a slew of products that would not be on the market today were it not for the music industry. I can understand that the music industry would want to take advantage of a profit where they feel it is available, but I don’t think this particular argument is a good one. It sets silly precedents.
Soon, Microsoft will demand a share of the profit from every PC ever sold. It’s Windows, after all, that built up that market. …Oh wait, I guess they do that already!
This is not unlike the fee added to ‘music format’ CDRs which the music industry negotioated in order to make money off the copying of cassettes and LPs onto CDs using stand-alone audio CD burners.
For more on this see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
You may not like it – but copyright law is likely to get more restrictive.
inferno 10, I’m not saying that Apple should pay the labels a cut of iPod profits. I’m simply stating the difference between MDN’s examples and Apple’s proprietary sales model.
I don’t think Apple should be collecting a cut of iPod accesory makers profits either, but they are..
Thanks to the DRM forced by *gasp* the labels. Oh, the irony.
—————–
Yes, the labels force DRM, but they did not force proprietary iPod only DRM..
Great, if Microsoft pays me $299 I’ll buy a Zune, but only a white one!
If the dea lis to share PROFITS then Universal is stupid since it’s already been stated the Zune’s are already selling at a loss.
And, if MS is still going to pay Universal for every one sold that’s an even bigger loss for MS to shoulder.
Must be nice to have cash cows like Windows and Office to buy your way into a market with
Advocate – “Apples proprietary marketing” which MS has decided to copy with Zune.
So ? Don’t like it, use another service which works as well, if you can find one, and get a non-DRM laden MP3, if you can find one legally.
The only thing Apple is guilty of at this stage is NOT licensing the DRM to other player makers.
If they wanted to shut Zune down they’d do that.
I’m sure they are talking to Creative and maybe others about that.
iTunes still sells more music than anyone else and being able to play it is a big plus for any device manufacturer. And, iTunes is in many countries where Zune is ONLY opening in the US as far as anyone has stated.
At this point Apple has a big lead and will hopefully make some partnerships and licensing deals to maintain that
Universal no doubt thinks it can get away getting iPod profits because of the little twit Bronfman, who thinks he’s a media genius.
But guess what, Apple doesn’t need Universal to succeed. By the time the current contract expires, Universal will need Apple much more than Apple will need Universal. And Steve can finally give the labels the bitch slaps they deserve.
I see this Zune ploy as nothing but an anti-competitive move by Microsoft to try to set a precedent which it hopes will spread and infect the iPod.
The Advocate – Oh and I see that that “Plays for Sure” plan worked really well didn’t it.. That is why Zune will also sell content that will only play on Zune.. I still don’t get you point..
Universal needs iPod and not backwards. iPod is the best selling music player in Latin America countries and there is no iTunes on those countries, you can put any music in your ipod (i put some from my old CD’s) so if universal does not get with iTunes, you can alway get it in other way where universal does not get any compensation. If any record label wants to survive to the digital era, they have to be on iTunes.
Advocate – Name another service that plays on both Windows and Mac? Not very proprietary now is it? You don’t have to carry your music with you? Just burn a CD and play it on your Diskman® if you want to – You can’t do that with a Plays fro Sure® subscription now can you????
I hae a better Idea,
“‘We felt that any business that’s built on the bedrock of music we should share in,”
Why not Universal and other companies pay a fee to Apple and zune because heir music is going to be played in their hardware? To liste to music, you need a player, if you do not have a hardware manofacturer to build those players, you can not sell any music, that is more fear.
iPod can be use to watch moviens, play games, liste to podcast. So, if I do not use my iPod to play universal music, should apple pay a fee to universal? That is crazy!.
“Do AM/FM radio makers share profits with music labels? No.”
ehhh, yes they do. They pay a royalty every time they play a song.
—
HAHAHA .. that’s radio _stations_ you smart ass.
The Advocate said: “Yes, the labels force DRM, but they did not force proprietary iPod only DRM..”
What’s your point? Is there another, better, DRM out there that could have been used instead?
It’s not really iPod only DRM – it will play on both macs and peecees. Please show us a more open DRM, oh wise one…
Don’t forget, DRM only applies to iTunes Store – Rip your own music without DRM. If DRM bothers u so much, get off your fat arse and go and buy the CDs. Or sit on your fat arse and order the CDs online from amazon or something. Keep in mind that you can’t do this with the Zune, as it will apply DRM to even your own music.
And meanwhile, David Pogue of the NYT has given his verdict…
Zune has no adavantages, is not cool, is a load of hassle, awkward to use, and is the result of a lot of wasted effort by Microsoft because it is green with envy.
Oh, and the iPod has a list of advantages that go all the way to Steve Ballmers house and back again.
His review will stop about 50% of Zunes prospective 5,000 sales in its first year.
How anyone feels the need to support anything done by Microsoft beats me.
Guys, guys, (and Gals), Microsoft is only following its OWN model.
Did the vast majority of PC makers pay Microsoft (a content provider) a fee REGARDLESS if Windows was installed on the computer or not?
YES!
The hardware makers paid MS a fee per system sold even if the system did not ship with a Windows OS or any other MS product indstalled. Microsoft thinks that all hardware makers should pay them this fee… and now they are a hardware maker and it is only reasonable to pay Universal (the content provider) a fee for their hardware, even if it doesn’t ship with any Universal content. It’s the way things are done… the Microsoft way.
How would it work though? How do they fairly split the amount they pay between everyt record company on earth? What if you’re a classical music fan, does your share only go to classical labels. It’s ridiculous.
What’s being missed here is that Universal’s cut will come straight from the users pocket. And sure enough, the other labels will want ‘in’ on this little scam too.
Now it begins to make sense why Microsoft is putting out a uninspiring, lumpy, old-tech Toshiba box – rather than developing a cutting-edge challenger to the iPod. Microsoft will get this stuff dirt-cheap, ramp up the price-point to match the iPod, with the difference – of, say, $50 a unit – going directly out the backdoor into the label’s bank accounts. I’d be pretty annoyed if I learnt that possibly a fifth of the good money I paid for this product had nothing to do with its value but was a private ‘tax’ for the labels.
The Zune is a DOG. We have to admire Microsoft’s advertising agency for making the association that only two things in this world come in shades of black, white and brown… Zunes and dog shit.
It seems that the music companies are trying even harder than Microsoft to kill the legal online music business.
It’s a wonder they sell anything at all.
Guys, I think you’re missing the very simple explanation for this fee MS is willing to pay:
If I remember correctly, the Zune is supposed to come with some music pre-installed at delivery – and of course the label who owns those pre-installed tracks will want to see royalties for them.
Simple as that.
Not that I’d want to have my player clogged with unwanted music out of the box (which I’d have paid for through the price of the player in any case), but as far as I can see, that’s the reason.
Maybe the labels should pay APPLE for every iPod it sells, since another iPod in the world is another avenue for the labels to sell a song.
For them to ask an MP3 player maker to pay THEM is absurd and just goes to show there is no limit to their greed.
I think I’ll fire up Limewire and collect a dozen more tunes, just to celebrate the MS/labels new deal.
why only pay Universal… what about the other recording companies? and independent labels… and podcasters? they should be getting a piece of the pie too… bad move by msoft… opening a can of worms…
This is the true story
No one’s got any sympathy or love for them (the Labels), because they’ve systematically been shoring up their figures in the short run – squeezing money into Universal to make up for their catastrophies; Warner Brothers have been coping with huge debt; EMI have been desperately trying to hold their stock price up so somebody would buy them; BMG has been wondering how the fuck they’re going to pay somebody back money for whatever it was, so they don’t go public – and Sony are in a terminal mess.
So all of them have been draining profit. It’s “get the money in, boys, get the money in. “
So they’ve raped them. They’ve raped their whole business model, and no one’s got the time or energy to think about their business.
Microsoft comes along and throws Universal what seems to appear to be a better bone with the Zune, but it’s smaller because iPod sales have already sucked the new market almost dry, for computer users that is, the non-computing uing market is being ignored by Apple so far.
Apple needs to come out with a new iPod/PDA device that doesn’t require a computer to accces iTMS
Just a “Smart Dock” device that hooks to the phone line with built in DSL straight to iTMS with backup hard drive.
Select the music and let it download overnight, of course Apple doesn’t have local phone numbers for DSL. 🙁
But they better do something, I’m tired of filling up friends iPods for them.
Sorry link to Quote “Big Labels are F*cked…”
http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/03/peter_jenner/page2.html
They dare not jump off the iPod bandwagon.
why only pay Universal… what about the other recording companies? and independent labels… and podcasters? they should be getting a piece of the pie too… bad move by msoft… opening a can of worms…
It seems that MS only uses Universal “preloaded” content at delivery…
Zune vs iPod – Which media player is right for you? | ClubZune.net
Just a “Smart Dock” device that hooks to the phone line with built in DSL straight to iTMS with backup hard drive.
Select the music and let it download overnight, of course Apple doesn’t have local phone numbers for DSL. 🙁
But they better do something, I’m tired of filling up friends iPods for them.
This could easily be the stupidest idea ever presented on here.
M$ is trying to ruin the market for everyone and then pick up the peices once everyone’s out. This is pathetic and ought to be against the law. They’re going to loose money on ever Zune they sell just to destroy the competition just like IE vs. Netscape. Same tactics.
It’s not “profit sharing.” Zune will not produce a profit for quite a while (If it survives). What M$ are doing is their standard practice: come out with a 1.0 ripoff, slowly buy market share until they own the market. And screw everyone along the way.
Seems like everyone gets money from Zune, except M$.
Hey, wake up man! “Radio makers” as in the hardware, as in the little boxes with wires and speakers and stuff. Not “radio stations” paying for content. Paying royalties for content and paying just to build a piece of hardware are two radically different things.
The average person buys only 20 songs from the iTunes store.
Most music or other things (podcasts) comes from other sources.
Thurmann was partly right. At one time major radio makers were also content providers.
Can you say RCA?
“MDN,
Did phonograph makers sell records that would only play on their phonograph? No.”
–they did, however, sell phonographs players that played only phongraphs not other forms of playable media.
“Did Sony sell cassette tapes that would only play on Walkmans? No.”
–They did, however, sell walkmans that played only casettes, not other forms of playable media
“Do AM/FM radio makers broadcast radio signals that can only be received on their radios? No.”
They do, however, sell radios that only receive radio signals and not other forms of signals.
“Do TV manufactures produce programming that will only play on their TV’s? No”
TV manufacturers do not produce programming and neither does Apple. They do, however, sell TVs that only receive TV signals and not for instance a CB signal even though some people might find that handy.
“Does Apple sell content (which is owned by the labels) that will only play on the iPod? YES.”
No they don’t. The content Apple sells plays on any computer with iTunes on it. Anything sold from iTunes can be put in CD format and played in a cd player and recorded to a casette to play in a walkman.
It seems that instead of restricting content, Apple has opened up new worlds of opportunity.
OK, so true $1 per Zune isn’t exactly a ton of money, but it proves just how greedy the music industry has become.
It hinestly makes me sort of glad that Zune is promoting indie artists over big-name musicians. The indies are the ones who deserve it: They are loyal and modest.
So if Microsoft was going to take a loss when the player was at $299, then they lowered the price to compete with Apple, then they pay a fee for each Zune sold, this is going to be bleeding money from Microsoft. But of course, that’s only if they sell many Zunes. Way to but into a market for less than 5% market share Microsoft. Way to operate with the interested of your owners in mind. You’re fired!
This is a very mob-like deal, kind of like “protection” money. Its bad business, very bad.
Like it or not, and for all of its apparent hassles, the only way to give the consumer and the retailer any kind of real freedom is to make it all pay-as-you-go. Consumers, and now retailers, are more and more getting trapped into these coporate back-door deals that are killing the number of choices we should be experiencing, especially with the technology to do it.
Nope, its bad business very bad, and if Apple is compelled to follow this business model in the long run, we’re all screwed.
So if Microsoft was going to take a loss when the player was at $299, then they lowered the price to compete with Apple, then they pay a fee for each Zune sold, this is going to be bleeding money from Microsoft. But of course, that’s only if they sell many Zunes. Way to but into a market for less than 5% market share Microsoft. Way to operate with the interested of your owners in mind. You’re fired!
Yes, Microsoft will be losing money with every Zune sold. But they are going to make up for it by selling in volume!
Having read all of the above comments, the one that really sticks in my mind concerns the DRM MonkeySoft slaps on every song ripped from one’s personal CD collection. I assume this is their attempt to prevent “theft” when two or more iTurds are squirting each other.
If “The Advocate” is still tuned in here, how do you rationalize THIS fact, sir or madam? Apple/iPod doesn’t do this! Music ripped from CD’s that I purchased is still free and unfettered on my portable device. Can you say the same for the M$ iTurd?
You know, Bugs Bunny was right: Maroons come in all colors.
Actually, MS will not lose money on every Zune sold, that’s a myth. Balmer himself said that they’re not going to lose money at the $249 price point, but they won’t make anything either. He said “$299″ would’ve been nice, but Apple has the benefit of volume, and we have to be competitive.”
From a purely American standpoint the French suck! Backstabbing, arrogant, rude and smelly, but hey, that got some hot looking chicks over there…… oops, they’re dudes, yikes, nevermind…..
Does Apple sell content (which is owned by the labels) that will only play on the iPod? YES.
No they don’t. The content Apple sells plays on any computer with iTunes on it. Anything sold from iTunes can be put in CD format and played in a cd player and recorded to a casette to play in a walkman.
You said it better than I’ve heard it before – this is the simple thing that Podcasters like CNET’s Buzz Report et. al. need to understand.
Sorry to say it, but Advocate is mumbling in his sleep:
Did phonograph makers sell records that would only play on their phonograph? No.
Did Sony sell cassette tapes that would only play on Walkmans? No.
Do AM/FM radio makers broadcast radio signals that can only be received on their radios? No.
Do TV manufactures produce programming that will only play on their TV’s? No
The VAST majority of the manufacturers of these products you mentioned made absolutely NO content at all for their products. You need to make a better point or don’t make one at all.
Randian, My point has been completely missed.
I am not defending the labels or Microsoft, and I am not saying that Apple’s proprietary system is wrong or bad.
All I was doing is explaining the difference between the examples that MDN used about phonograph players, walkmans, etc. and Apple’s model.
None of the examples MDN listed were proprietary systems, content for those devices could be sold by anyone. Whereas with the iPod, (digital) content can only be sold through Apple itself .. THAT is the reason the labels feel they are entitiled to a cut of the Hardware profits. I’m not saying they deserve a cut of the profits, I’m saying that is why they feel they are entitled, because their content is helping to drive iPod sales. That’s it. I’m not disagreeing that MS is copying that model, I’m not saying “Plays for Sure” was a better system. Can I be more clear about this?
Point two that I was trying to make is that Apple is doing the same thing to iPod accessory makers that the labels wish to do to Apple…
Now if the labels don’t deserve a cut of iPod sales (and I don’t think they do,) then why does Apple deserve a cut of third party iPod accessories?
It is the same concept. The labels feel they are fueling the sales of the iPod. Apple feels they are fueling the sales of accessories..
The VAST majority of the manufacturers of these products you mentioned made absolutely NO content at all for their products. You need to make a better point or don’t make one at all.
——————–
What you just said is the only point I was trying to make.. The manufacturers of those products don’t sell proprietary content, Apple does. That is the difference, and that’s why the labels want a cut. Again, I’m not saying they deserve a cut, I’m just pointing out their reasoning..
A phonograph manufacturer to a vinyl album is not the same as the iPod to an iTunes purchased digital download.
I don’t have a single iTunes Store-purchased track on any of my three iPods. All my tracks are ripped from CD in ACC and/or MP3.
So, why would Universal want a cut of each of the three iPods I’ve purchased from Apple?
The deal with Universal is more than meets the eye. A good source indicates the deal includes for a FREE subscription to all Universal songs as long as the user visits the Zune marketplace a least once per month. That might be enticing. The Ad revenue is what they are looking at here, which Universal will also get a chunk of.
“My point is that the labels feel entitled to a cut of iPod profits because their content is driving sales of the iPod… Much like Apple feels entitled to a cut of third party iPod accessory manufacturers.”
I do not believe your first point. This is an assumption that has been thrown around by many analysts and pundits, but I do not believe that this has ever bveen shown to be true. Further, I believe the opposite is true – people pick a device and shop at a store based on what will work with their device. There is evidence to show that most of the music on such devices is ripped from CD collections.
“Does Apple sell content (which is owned by the labels) that will only play on the iPod? YES.”
NO. Any computer that can run current iTunes software will also play the music. Although I understand that you meant portable devices, I believe it is an important point here. If music purchased from download stores ONLY played on devices and these devices ONLY played music purchased as downloads, you would have a point.
“Don’t like it, use another service which works as well, if you can find one, and get a non-DRM laden MP3, if you can find one legally.”
First, those kind of stores do exist. eMusic, Bleep.com, etc. Second, that “take it or leave it” thing is pretty silly. Consumers have every right to like or dislike what they please about any product and make a choice based on that. I buy tracks from iTunes. I think the DRM is ridiculous. Just because I decided to use it does not mean I do not have every right to say that the DRM sucks. I can defeat it, sure, but it compromises the sound quality. Don’t be a corporate zombie and take whatever you get.
Giving a fee to Univeral for every Zune sold is merely MS’s way of bending over for the content providers so that they will expect the same out of Apple. It is corporate strategy. They know they cannot win on their product, so they are going to give corporations better deals. It is going to be bad for all consumers if MS wins because they will allow the content providers to stick DRM on every single media file in a way that will make us long for the days of draconian DRM. Mix CDs for friends? Forget about it. Your only option will be to squirt on them. Don’t worry – it will not be around long enough to leave a stain.
“the one that really sticks in my mind concerns the DRM MonkeySoft slaps on every song ripped from one’s personal CD collection.”
Yikes! Is that true? If it is, it is just another way in which MS is bending over for the content providers. Oh, don’t worry. It does not hurt them. It hurts the consumer.
I can’t wait to see whoever invented the guitar coming back from the grave to claim royalties on every song ever played using one….
>_>
I can’t wait to see whoever invented the guitar coming back from the grave to claim royalties on every song ever played using one….
Ha ha… Funny.. The difference is the guy who invented the guitar didn’t have a shop with a law that stated if you wan’t to buy a guitar, you can only buy it from me
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Doesn’t this remind you of this old Russian joke?
There were once two poor peasants named Ivan and Boris. They were desperately poor; life was a struggle for both of them. But after years of labor, Boris managed to acquire a cow. Ivan was hurt; he felt inferior to his old friend. One night, Ivan’s guardian angel came to him and said, “Ivan, I know you are unhappy because Boris is wealthier than you. I can help you; I can grant your wish. Would you like to have a cow like Boris?”
To which Ivan replied, “No, I want you to kill Boris’ cow.”
The only faux paux with Apple or Microsoft’s proprietary concept is that they are making content that they DO NOT OWN proprietary. The content that iTunes and Zune Marketplace sells is owned by artists, labels and publishers, not Apple or MS.
If Apple wants to be proprietary with software like OSX, or Microsoft with Windows, then fine, they created and own the rights to that software. But to take somebody elses content and turn it into a proprietary format just seems un-ethical… When somebody purchases music, they should be listen to it anaywhere they wish. Period. Unless the Apple or Microsoft staff start writing and recording music, there should be laws against allow them to sell content to play on their devices or software only.
Just because it’s a digital format doesn’t mean the rules should change… Could you imagine buying a CD player from Best Buy and only being able to play cd’s that you purchased from Best Buy on it? It seems ridiculous right? Well, that’s exactly the same thing that Apple and now Microsoft are doing.
Kill Boris’ Cow,
And there you have ultra big business in America today, at its level best.
Universal is supposed to grant additional license rights under this deal.
Most likely scenario is that the 3 days or 3 plays may be done away with (or losened) for Universal artists. If they’re getting a piece of the hardware sales it does em good to see more Zunes being sold.
If that’s the case, this suddenly got more interesting.
Faux Paux,
I don’t think the scenario you describe is valid. Simply put, its not accurate. If Apple and MS were the ONLY way to aquire someone elses content then your point would be well made, but in fact, you CAN aquire 95%-99% off all music offered by Apple (less sure about MS because of there emphasis on indie artists), in other easily accessible ways that are not viewed as proprietary, i.e., a CD.
“…imagine buying a CD player from Best Buy and only being able to play CD’s that you purchased from Best Buy on it? It seems ridiculous right? Well, that’s exactly the same thing that Apple and now Microsoft are doing.”
This whole issue is moot!
I have been using iTunes and iTS for years and have never owned an iPod, I don’t need one! I do create mix CDs that I take to work, which is the only place I listen to my music when I’m not at home. Has DRM ever prevented me from doing what I want? Never!
This all sounds like a typical STRAW MAN argument:
1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted. (this one is well used!)
2. Quote an opponent’s words “out of context” — i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent’s actual intentions. ( Ditto!)
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person’s arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. (oh boy, heard that one!)
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. (Microsoft has used this one on many occasions, ALL of them actually!)
I don’t think the scenario you describe is valid. Simply put, its not accurate. If Apple and MS were the ONLY way to aquire someone elses content then your point would be well made, but in fact, you CAN aquire 95%-99% off all music offered by Apple (less sure about MS because of there emphasis on indie artists), in other easily accessible ways that are not viewed as proprietary, i.e., a CD.
—————-
Mr. Peabody, I understand that Cd’s can still be purchased.. But quite honestly cd’s days are numbered.. In Seven, eight, ten years max, we will no longer be purchasing music in physical formats. The future of music is digital, there is no doubt about it.. And distributors turning content which they do not own into proprietary formats is wrong.
“My point is that the labels feel entitled to a cut of iPod profits because their content is driving sales of the iPod… “
I thought iPods were driving music sales since music sales have improved since the iTMS release.
Re: Proprietary systems…they have existed.
T.Edison’s gramaphone cylinders vs. disk records.
VHS vs. BETA
VHS vs DVD
AM vs FM
UHF vs VHF
45 RPM vs 33 RPM vs 78 RPM
Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD
WMP vs Fairplay/AAC
In many cases, content providers welcome these change of format because it “forces” the end user to repurchase previously purchased material. (Buy the record, then the tape, then the CD of the same album!!)
Probably the biggest complaint from the labels is that users are not rebuying material but just transferring it from CD to digital MP3 etc.
The other mark,
The difference is that ANY manufacturer can make a device that will play VHS, Beta, DVD, Blu-Ray, or HD-Dv format… When I say proprietary, I mean a proprietary system. As in Apple is the only company that can make a device (the iPod) that will play Fairplay files.
Rip the iTunes purchases to CD and voila DRM stripped, why don’t u people get it.
Why would MS offer that to Universal only?
Jobs should tell the record execs he’ll also give them a kick back for every “ZUNE” sold, wouldn’t cost Apple much LOL
Vist this
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Hmmmmm.
“Universal, owned by French media giant Vivendi,”” is a company that is owned by a man that has lost several fortunes thru his lack of leadership. Google him for articles.
This is just going to cost MS even more money.
— > More future blood on iPods click wheel.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
N.